BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

120 results for “reassessment”+ Survey u/s 133Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai656Delhi635Jaipur221Bangalore199Chennai141Hyderabad120Kolkata119Ahmedabad71Rajkot64Chandigarh61Pune58Visakhapatnam55Surat50Amritsar50Patna46Guwahati44Indore37Cochin35Raipur24Nagpur17Lucknow17Agra16Jodhpur16Ranchi15Panaji7Karnataka4Allahabad3Dehradun2SC2Telangana2Kerala2Calcutta1Uttarakhand1

Key Topics

Section 148120Section 153C114Addition to Income90Section 143(3)68Section 13263Section 14761Search & Seizure52Section 148A34Section 6933

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ACE CONSTRUCTIONS , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 50/HYD/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

133A of the act in the case of Sonic Battery also gives credence to the inference that it is merely a paper company and the claim of Rs.25 Crores given by it for land syndication to Amit Bansal cannot be considered as a genuine transaction. b) Further land where it is seen from the land syndication agreements with the Sonic

ACE CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

Showing 1–20 of 120 · Page 1 of 6

Section 139(1)31
Limitation/Time-bar27
Cash Deposit24

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 28/HYD/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

133A of the act in the case of Sonic Battery also gives credence to the inference that it is merely a paper company and the claim of Rs.25 Crores given by it for land syndication to Amit Bansal cannot be considered as a genuine transaction. b) Further land where it is seen from the land syndication agreements with the Sonic

ACE CONSTRUCTIONS ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 26/HYD/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

133A of the act in the case of Sonic Battery also gives credence to the inference that it is merely a paper company and the claim of Rs.25 Crores given by it for land syndication to Amit Bansal cannot be considered as a genuine transaction. b) Further land where it is seen from the land syndication agreements with the Sonic

ROYAL ENGINEERING,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 18/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

133A of the act in the case of Sonic Battery also gives credence to the inference that it is merely a paper company and the claim of Rs.25 Crores given by it for land syndication to Amit Bansal cannot be considered as a genuine transaction. b) Further land where it is seen from the land syndication agreements with the Sonic

ROYAL ENGINEERING,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 17/HYD/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

133A of the act in the case of Sonic Battery also gives credence to the inference that it is merely a paper company and the claim of Rs.25 Crores given by it for land syndication to Amit Bansal cannot be considered as a genuine transaction. b) Further land where it is seen from the land syndication agreements with the Sonic

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ACE CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 53/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

133A of the act in the case of Sonic Battery also gives credence to the inference that it is merely a paper company and the claim of Rs.25 Crores given by it for land syndication to Amit Bansal cannot be considered as a genuine transaction. b) Further land where it is seen from the land syndication agreements with the Sonic

ACE CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 27/HYD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

133A of the act in the case of Sonic Battery also gives credence to the inference that it is merely a paper company and the claim of Rs.25 Crores given by it for land syndication to Amit Bansal cannot be considered as a genuine transaction. b) Further land where it is seen from the land syndication agreements with the Sonic

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ROYAL ENGINEERING, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 41/HYD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

133A of the act in the case of Sonic Battery also gives credence to the inference that it is merely a paper company and the claim of Rs.25 Crores given by it for land syndication to Amit Bansal cannot be considered as a genuine transaction. b) Further land where it is seen from the land syndication agreements with the Sonic

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ACE CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 51/HYD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

133A of the act in the case of Sonic Battery also gives credence to the inference that it is merely a paper company and the claim of Rs.25 Crores given by it for land syndication to Amit Bansal cannot be considered as a genuine transaction. b) Further land where it is seen from the land syndication agreements with the Sonic

ACE CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 30/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

133A of the act in the case of Sonic Battery also gives credence to the inference that it is merely a paper company and the claim of Rs.25 Crores given by it for land syndication to Amit Bansal cannot be considered as a genuine transaction. b) Further land where it is seen from the land syndication agreements with the Sonic

ROYAL ENGINEERING,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 14/HYD/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

133A of the act in the case of Sonic Battery also gives credence to the inference that it is merely a paper company and the claim of Rs.25 Crores given by it for land syndication to Amit Bansal cannot be considered as a genuine transaction. b) Further land where it is seen from the land syndication agreements with the Sonic

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ACE CONSTRUCTIONS, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 52/HYD/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

133A of the act in the case of Sonic Battery also gives credence to the inference that it is merely a paper company and the claim of Rs.25 Crores given by it for land syndication to Amit Bansal cannot be considered as a genuine transaction. b) Further land where it is seen from the land syndication agreements with the Sonic

ACE CONSTRUCTIONS,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 29/HYD/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

133A of the act in the case of Sonic Battery also gives credence to the inference that it is merely a paper company and the claim of Rs.25 Crores given by it for land syndication to Amit Bansal cannot be considered as a genuine transaction. b) Further land where it is seen from the land syndication agreements with the Sonic

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ROYAL ENGINEERING, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 42/HYD/2021[2012-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2012-12

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

133A of the act in the case of Sonic Battery also gives credence to the inference that it is merely a paper company and the claim of Rs.25 Crores given by it for land syndication to Amit Bansal cannot be considered as a genuine transaction. b) Further land where it is seen from the land syndication agreements with the Sonic

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. ROYAL ENGINEERING, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 43/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

133A of the act in the case of Sonic Battery also gives credence to the inference that it is merely a paper company and the claim of Rs.25 Crores given by it for land syndication to Amit Bansal cannot be considered as a genuine transaction. b) Further land where it is seen from the land syndication agreements with the Sonic

ROYAL ENGINEERING,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 16/HYD/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

133A of the act in the case of Sonic Battery also gives credence to the inference that it is merely a paper company and the claim of Rs.25 Crores given by it for land syndication to Amit Bansal cannot be considered as a genuine transaction. b) Further land where it is seen from the land syndication agreements with the Sonic

ROYAL ENGINEERING,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 15/HYD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

133A of the act in the case of Sonic Battery also gives credence to the inference that it is merely a paper company and the claim of Rs.25 Crores given by it for land syndication to Amit Bansal cannot be considered as a genuine transaction. b) Further land where it is seen from the land syndication agreements with the Sonic

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE -3(4), HYDERABAD vs. ROYAL ENGINEERING, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 40/HYD/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsl. आ.अपी.सं / निर्धारणारण वर्ष अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / No.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudhan, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

133A of the act in the case of Sonic Battery also gives credence to the inference that it is merely a paper company and the claim of Rs.25 Crores given by it for land syndication to Amit Bansal cannot be considered as a genuine transaction. b) Further land where it is seen from the land syndication agreements with the Sonic

SOUBHAGYA PROJECTS, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 743/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri Md. Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Smt. U. Minichandran, DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153

Survey u/s. 133A can be detained only for 10 days and the Assessing Officer has not obtained the I approval of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. This contention of A.R. is ill informed I as the Assessing Officer has obtained for approval for retention of books from Chief Commissioner of Income Tax vide letter dated

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. TRACKS & TOWERS INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED(PART IX), HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1514/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal
Section 133ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80I

133A was carried out in the case of the appellant on 22.02.2016 and the appellant had disclosed an additional income of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- for the year under consideration. The appellant, there after filed a revised return u/s. 139(5) on 21.12.2016 at an income of Rs. 9,70,04,260/- and claiming a deduction u/ s. 80IA